Contrasting exercise cerebral oxigenation in COPD patients with and without chronic heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cerebral oxygenation (COx) increases during progressive exercise, a key adjustment to performance that is impaired in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic heart failure (CHF). Association of COPD and CHF could potentiate these deleterious phenomena. Objective: To evaluate COx as assessed by continuous-wave near-infrared spectroscopy in response to incremental cycle ergometry exercise test in COPD-CHF versus COPD alone. Methods : 24 males (13 with COPD-CHF (FEV 1 = 59.6 ± 17.5% pred; left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF)= 34 ± 6% )) and 10 with COPD (FEV 1 = 48.6 ± 16.0% pred; LVEF= 64 ± 4%) were submitted to cardiopulmonary exercise test. ΔCOx (fold-changes in HbO 2 ), oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO 2 ), and cardiac output (QT) by impedance cardiography were assessed. Variables were analyzed at peak exercise and up to an iso-work rate of 40 W (area under the curve, AUC). Results: COPD-CHF had lower peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 ) ( p p vs. 37 ± 3 ( p 2 AUC, however, was higher in the former group (p p Conclusion : Increases in cerebral oxigenation were lessened in COPD-CHF overlap compared to COPD on isolation. These findings are more likely to be related to hemodynamic deficits as blood oxygenation was better in patients with coexisting COPD-CHF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".